German article: sceptics are "like viruses"

UPDATE: Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science smears Vahrenholt with one of its usual smug cut-and-paste jobs from IPCC AR4, dismissing any possible solar influence on climate other than TSI. See? The science is settled when you cover your eyes and shut your ears! Yawn. How they loathe it when one of their own turns on them. Link – Webcite only, not giving them any of my traffic.

Once again, I suppose we should be pleased that those who attack sceptics have no arguments whatsoever, and resort to name calling and bizarre explanations as to why anyone could possibly be a climate heretic. These poor souls are so brainwashed that they have lost the ability to reason logically, so instead they flail wildly around, searching for any possible excuse. So much less effort than responding to the sceptics’ points.

We have seen this before. Here, from 2009, is a response to the claim that sceptics were mentally ill:

The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent.

The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change.

Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.

CSIRO’s former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:

“Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed.”

The attitude of refusal by the IPCC with respect to open scientific discussion and debate is now conspicuous. This is demomstrated by IPCC lead author Dr. Petra Döll in the German online taz in claiming that “climate skeptics” no longer need to be heard. Indeed it is questionable just how long this weird scientific approach can be maintained. Should we not expect a professional demeanor from scientists who are paid and supported by German tax revenue? Döll’s dubious reasoning: The climate skeptics ”just keep repeating the same arguments”.

Could it be that the so-called climate skeptics are forced to keep repeating because the current climate science establishment has yet to provide a satisfactory answer? There’s a lot that indicates this is the case. An assessment of the media one week after the launch of the book “Die kalte Sonne” has clearly shown: The media are relying on a hand-full of prominent experts whose arguments are showing to be everything but scientifically convincing. The statements of many experts and activist editors are characterized by misrepresentations, intentional omissions and errors.

Critical thinking is a mental disorder. Let daddy government and the scientific community do the thinking for you now take this medicine and watch the TV and dont ask too many questions. Go back to sleep baby everythings ok.

after spending time in a greehouse, picking up fresh fruit and veg all year round, i feel great! and the concentration of “carbon pollution” is typically 1000-2000ppm/v… submarines can operate at ~5000-8000ppm/v… but i am always filled with nausiea when i visit a govn’t/polliticians office…

Let’s not forget that climate sceptics should also be tattooed and gassed, thanks to leftists Jill Singer and Richard Glover. Now sceptics are viruses … which reminds me of another quote from the 1940’s about the Jews being a virus and parasites… And sceptics are the one’s who’ve got it all wrong, apparently!

As a Jew, I hope I am right to say that it hasn’t got that bad and I REALLY don’t want to add the word “yet” to that statement.

There is a chink in the environmentalists armour and I see a more skeptics in the mainstream. As Hitler got closer to the end he became increasingly crazed, insane and despotic – such is the way of the environmentalists … without the downright evil and genocidal part in between, we all hope.

Maybe people may take your arguments more seriously if you got over the notion that a chemicial substance can be “harmless” or indeed necessary for life at one concentration and harmful at another. Our bodies are in a constant state of balancing numerous elements to avoid the detrimental effect of a deficiency or toxicity.

the point is quite simple, any comment that CO2 could not be causing damage because it is a “harmless gas” is very weak because it show a fundamental lack of understanding of how organisms and ecosystems function

So, Going on Johns theory on CO2 it seems ive been playing Russian Roulette everytime I have a beer or a can of soda, Lets face it they are both crammed with the stuff,They certainly have a higher percentage than what the atmosphere will ever reach.

klem, I do not know from what kind of mental illness climate alamists suffer, but I do know, that most of the Global Warming alarmists suffer from mental illness called LYSENKOISM, aka MICHURINISM (official name!), which is manifested in manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

JJ, For 90% of the Earth’s history CO2 levels have been more than 10 times current levels, yet the ecosystems managed to evolve. At half current levels, life on Earth would end. The small increase in CO2 concentrations in recent years has acted only to increase crop growth. It has not caused harm of any kind.

I am not trying to debate what the level of CO2 is or has been, nor what level is toxic to different species. I am not arguing for or against climate warming. What I am saying is that most life operates in a constant state of balance and that a disturbance in this balance – in either direction can be detrimental. Our bodies need oxygen, however if given pure oxygen for extended periods there are serious consequences, our bodies need carbon – however carbon and carbon monoxide poisoning are features of dense cities, smokers and the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is used as a euthanising agent in commercial piggeries every day and yet we all breath it constantly.So Tim, if you want to play Russian Roulette, get yourself a pure CO2 cannister and breath that for a while. Hence, any argument that states that carbon dioxide, or any other substance for that matter, can not have a negative impact on the world/life because we need it to live is simply wrong. It is also important to realise for any issue there is evidence for and against, good scientists make their conclusions on a balance of evidence. Tony, yes it is interesting that for a large part of Earth History CO2 levels were higher than current, however I dont think that disproves humans have impacted the earths climate over the last 200 years. I must also write that for anyone serious about challanging the overwhelmingly dominant view of climate change – it would do yourselves alot of credit to distance (as much as possible) from people like ‘Tim French’ above – they will not win a scientific debate in any areas, facebook or otherwise.

Anyone that cannot see the fake manner in which the “greenhouse effect” is presented and is completely unsubstantiated by any scientific fact is either lazy or lacking in intellectual ability.

How they can claim our atmosphere heats the Earth’s surface when the reverse is so easily verifiable simply amazes me.

If the Sun can heat the surface of the Moon to a maximum of ~120 degrees C ( and remember the temperature depends solely on the solar radiation from the Sun – the long lunar day has nothing to do with it – the Stefan-Boltzman equation and Thermodynamics proves this) then why doesn’t the Earth exposed to the same solar radiation heat to such high levels ???

The answer is the atmosphere is freely convecting – the heated air rises and is replaced by cooler air. Water in the oceans evaporates removing energy and convects into the atmosphere removing energy from the surface. Once at high altitudes the air radiates the heat to space – trace gases have little to do with it – by the very term their effect is TRACE – that is so small as to be negligible.

Once you realize that the Earth’s surface never even approaches the maximum temperature the solar radiation is capable of heating it to you realise the “greenhouse effect” as postulated by climate scientists does not exist – the opposite is true – the atmosphere and oceans shield us from radiation which could destroy most life on Earth.

So the Earth is demonstrably COOLER than it would be without water or the atmosphere – The Moon – 120 C during the day – proves this.

JJ, EXACTLY what is the EVIDENCE that “humans have impacted the earths climate over the last 200 years” as you suggest ? In your own words, rather than links to alarmist web sites please. What is the ‘big one’ in your view ?

All the IPCC presents for “evidence” is very shonky models that have now been shown to have zero predictive value.

It is called ‘Cognitive Dissonance’. It is all to do with hard wiring in the brain following a solid belief in an idea. We see it mostly with religion where you can point out the most obvious errors, but the faithful see something entirely different.

I have even had them tell me that the word ‘Egypt’ in Revelation 11:8 really means Israel. In a way that is right since Israel was Lower Egypt from at least the time of the Pharaoh Djoser – Old Kingdom – who is Joshua in 1 Samuel 6. But if you point this out then their argument changes. It is all quite bizarre.

Some of these warmist proerganderists certainly bur up when people don’t take their doomsday predictions to heart. Well they better get use to it because the groundswell of scepticism continues to grow as the global temperarture continues to flatline or decline.

John Debenham, as soon as someone cites Un-Skeptical Pseudo -Science as a source, they lose all credibility at ACM, sorry mate. Same goes for politically-driven IPCC. Venturing into troll territory, sadly.

Also, ACM, when you say ´politically-driven IPCC´do you believe that the IPCC has a certain potitical motive and so deliberately misinterprets the literature, or do you believe that all the independent bodies around the world that publish papers on climate have a common political motif.

JJ, To answer your question, no.
1. The rate of warming was faster between 1910 and 1945 than any subsequent period after 1945, when man started spewing carbon dioxide in earnest.
2. The man responsible for IPCC climate data, Dr Phil Jones, has admitted on BBC interview and on Hansard, to parliament, that there has been no warming for the past 15 years. The IPCC’s models have clearly been shown to be in error.
3. Over the past 10,000 years since the last Ice Age, temperatures on average have been falling.
4. Temperatures were warmer than currently during the Medieval Warm Period (over 400 papers support this), the Roman Warm Period etc.
5. The world has been warming over the past 300 years or so since the Little Ice Age
There is nothing unusual about the current climate.

The sun is the key factor effecting our climate, not atmospheric trace gases. The IPCC ignors all changes in the sun except irradience. The sun has entered its quietest phase since the LIA … it looks like we are due for another major cool period.

The IPCC IS a political body, not a scientific one. Look at it’s title ! Ask yourself why is it headed by a railway engineer instead of a climatologist ! Why has this guy already blatantly scammed millions of dollars via carbon credits through his “non profit” company, TERI ? Pachauri is just one of a small group of key scammers driving the IPCC, including Trenberth (I’ve had private correspondence with this ratbag), Jones, Mann (currently involved in legal action against his scamming) etc.

If you feel there are many independent researchers who don’t need grant money, where is the EVIDENCE for AGW that the billions of scammed research dollars have produced ?? ie … my original question !

Search

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.